National Parks will be protected from fracking, pledges government as licences are up for grabs

National Parks in England will be protected from fracking unless there are ''exceptional circumstances'', ministers announced today.

The policy was unveiled as the latest bidding process for shale companies seeking licences to explore for oil and gas was opened.

The Government has committed to going ''all out for shale'', claiming development of the gas and oil resource is needed to improve energy security, boost jobs and the economy and bring down energy prices.

But opponents say it causes disruption and damaging development in the countryside, can cause minor earthquakes and the risk of water pollution, and that exploiting new oil and gas resources is not compatible with tackling climate change.

Ministers have unveiled new guidance which means applications for developments in National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, World Heritage Sites and the Broads should be refused other than in ''exceptional circumstances and in the public interest''.

Paul Walton, head of environment and rural economy said: “The New Forest is a world-class landscape with over half of it recognised as being internationally-important for nature.

“We welcome the Government’s intention to safeguard National Parks to ensure these iconic landscapes continue to receive the highest status of protection.

“As with all major forms of infrastructure, oil and gas development should only be permitted within our finest landscapes in exceptional circumstances, where the reasons for National Parks being created would not be compromised and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest.”

The Department of Energy and Climate Change said where an application in these areas is refused and the developer launches an appeal, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles will consider whether to make the final decision himself to ensure the policy is being properly applied.

Business and energy minister Matthew Hancock said: ''Unlocking shale gas in Britain has the potential to provide us with greater energy security, jobs and growth.

''We must act carefully, minimising risks, to explore how much of our large resource can be recovered to give the UK a new home-grown source of energy.

''As one of the cleanest fossil fuels, shale gas can be a key part of the UK's answer to climate change and a bridge to a much greener future.

''The new guidance published today will protect Britain's great National Parks and outstanding landscapes, building on the existing rules that ensure operational best practices are implemented and robustly enforced.

''Ultimately, done right, speeding up shale will mean more jobs and opportunities for people and help ensure long-term economic and energy security for our country.''

But Greenpeace warned that the National Parks policy would not appease campaigners against fracking.

Louise Hutchins, Greenpeace UK energy campaigner, said: ''The Government has fired the starting gun on a reckless race for shale that could see fracking rigs go up across the British countryside, including in sensitive areas such as those covering major aquifers.

''Eric Pickles' supposed veto power over drilling in National Parks will do nothing to quell the disquiet of fracking opponents across Britain.

''Ministers waited until the parliamentary recess to make their move, no doubt aware of the political headache this will cause to MPs whose constituencies will be affected.''

Friends of the Earth's energy campaigner, Tony Bosworth, said: ''Today the risk of fracking has spread. This threat to the environment and public health could now affect millions more people.

''Those who thought that fracking would only happen in other places will now worry about it happening on their doorstep.

''Fracking is increasingly politically toxic and is far from being seen as the holy grail of energy policy by those local to proposed drilling sites.''

The licences which can be applied for from today provide the first step to start drilling but do not give an absolute agreement to drill.

Planning permission, permits from the Environment Agency and agreement from the Health and Safety Executive will be required for further drilling.

Comments

I'd be very surprised if it resulted in lower bills? Like north sea oil it will probably be sold for export for short term gain?

Those "exceptional circumstances" being if they find gas there ;)
I'd be very surprised if it resulted in lower bills? Like north sea oil it will probably be sold for export for short term gain?BarrHumbug

Those "exceptional circumstances" being if they find gas there ;)

I'd be very surprised if it resulted in lower bills? Like north sea oil it will probably be sold for export for short term gain?

Score: 22

The Liberal
10:09am Mon 28 Jul 14

One somewhat obvious question: if fracking is as risk-free as its supporters claim and doesn't spoil the countryside, why should national parks be out of bounds? Is there something they're not telling us?

One somewhat obvious question: if fracking is as risk-free as its supporters claim and doesn't spoil the countryside, why should national parks be out of bounds? Is there something they're not telling us?The Liberal

One somewhat obvious question: if fracking is as risk-free as its supporters claim and doesn't spoil the countryside, why should national parks be out of bounds? Is there something they're not telling us?

Score: 12

Hessenford
9:39am Mon 28 Jul 14

The Government has committed to going ''all out for shale'', claiming development of the gas and oil resource is needed to improve energy security, boost jobs and the economy and bring down energy prices.
.
As opposed to the offshore wind farm which will push up energy prices.
.
Friends of the Earth's energy campaigner, Tony Bosworth, said: ''Today the risk of fracking has spread. This threat to the environment and public health could now affect millions more people.
.
Friends of the earth, if you can call them that, and Greenpeace are never happy, every new energy source found is never good enough for these lunatics, thank God these fringe groups will never run this country, if they did we would all be back in medieval times.

The Government has committed to going ''all out for shale'', claiming development of the gas and oil resource is needed to improve energy security, boost jobs and the economy and bring down energy prices.
.
As opposed to the offshore wind farm which will push up energy prices.
.
Friends of the Earth's energy campaigner, Tony Bosworth, said: ''Today the risk of fracking has spread. This threat to the environment and public health could now affect millions more people.
.
Friends of the earth, if you can call them that, and Greenpeace are never happy, every new energy source found is never good enough for these lunatics, thank God these fringe groups will never run this country, if they did we would all be back in medieval times.Hessenford

The Government has committed to going ''all out for shale'', claiming development of the gas and oil resource is needed to improve energy security, boost jobs and the economy and bring down energy prices.
.
As opposed to the offshore wind farm which will push up energy prices.
.
Friends of the Earth's energy campaigner, Tony Bosworth, said: ''Today the risk of fracking has spread. This threat to the environment and public health could now affect millions more people.
.
Friends of the earth, if you can call them that, and Greenpeace are never happy, every new energy source found is never good enough for these lunatics, thank God these fringe groups will never run this country, if they did we would all be back in medieval times.

Score: -10

Ivy
9:54am Mon 28 Jul 14

Before everyone starts thinking that the Dorset coast line will be excempt, this announcement is for new licences. Six licences have already been sold for oil/gas exploration along the Dorset Coast to Highcliffe. 3 of these licences extend from Poole to Highcliffe and are owned by NWE an Australian company that only works in fracking. Also permission was recently granted to Infra Strata for exploratory oil/gas drilling from a site 500metres from Durlston Country Park Visitor Centre - and people complain about windfarms, I know what I prefer, get Navitus built!

Before everyone starts thinking that the Dorset coast line will be excempt, this announcement is for new licences. Six licences have already been sold for oil/gas exploration along the Dorset Coast to Highcliffe. 3 of these licences extend from Poole to Highcliffe and are owned by NWE an Australian company that only works in fracking. Also permission was recently granted to Infra Strata for exploratory oil/gas drilling from a site 500metres from Durlston Country Park Visitor Centre - and people complain about windfarms, I know what I prefer, get Navitus built!Ivy

Before everyone starts thinking that the Dorset coast line will be excempt, this announcement is for new licences. Six licences have already been sold for oil/gas exploration along the Dorset Coast to Highcliffe. 3 of these licences extend from Poole to Highcliffe and are owned by NWE an Australian company that only works in fracking. Also permission was recently granted to Infra Strata for exploratory oil/gas drilling from a site 500metres from Durlston Country Park Visitor Centre - and people complain about windfarms, I know what I prefer, get Navitus built!

Score: 6

BarrHumbug
10:55am Mon 28 Jul 14

The Liberal wrote…

One somewhat obvious question: if fracking is as risk-free as its supporters claim and doesn't spoil the countryside, why should national parks be out of bounds? Is there something they're not telling us?

Just to keep the NIMBYs happy, if they're kicking off about a wind farm 9-12 miles away from a World Heritage site then imaging what a fuss they'd make about a site actually on the land in question?

[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
One somewhat obvious question: if fracking is as risk-free as its supporters claim and doesn't spoil the countryside, why should national parks be out of bounds? Is there something they're not telling us?[/p][/quote]Just to keep the NIMBYs happy, if they're kicking off about a wind farm 9-12 miles away from a World Heritage site then imaging what a fuss they'd make about a site actually on the land in question?BarrHumbug

The Liberal wrote…

One somewhat obvious question: if fracking is as risk-free as its supporters claim and doesn't spoil the countryside, why should national parks be out of bounds? Is there something they're not telling us?

Just to keep the NIMBYs happy, if they're kicking off about a wind farm 9-12 miles away from a World Heritage site then imaging what a fuss they'd make about a site actually on the land in question?

Score: 15

muscliffman
12:26pm Mon 28 Jul 14

This 'assurance' just confirms that there is a continuing energy weakness in political circles. They are just 'spinning' and once again trying to placate the NIMBYS and the 'greens', apparently still quite unaware how few of these very irritating and noisy people there really are. However the vital get out clause 'exceptional circumstances' thankfully says it all!

If fracking really presented any danger at all (it doesn't) to populated areas then these sparsely populated Parks are the very places it should be done - of course the anti-fracking 'greens' are not very good with common sense or logic so this vital point has probably escaped them.

The UK must invest urgently in sensible electricity generation systems including shale gas production and discard those ludicrous next to useless wind farms. Fracking is simply a new name for a process that has been going on worldwide (and nearby) without incident for many years, it is now widespread in the USA and has brought them immense economic benefits.

Ignore the selfish NIMBYs and the daft 'Greens' and for goodness sake just get on with it.

This 'assurance' just confirms that there is a continuing energy weakness in political circles. They are just 'spinning' and once again trying to placate the NIMBYS and the 'greens', apparently still quite unaware how few of these very irritating and noisy people there really are. However the vital get out clause 'exceptional circumstances' thankfully says it all!
If fracking really presented any danger at all (it doesn't) to populated areas then these sparsely populated Parks are the very places it should be done - of course the anti-fracking 'greens' are not very good with common sense or logic so this vital point has probably escaped them.
The UK must invest urgently in sensible electricity generation systems including shale gas production and discard those ludicrous next to useless wind farms. Fracking is simply a new name for a process that has been going on worldwide (and nearby) without incident for many years, it is now widespread in the USA and has brought them immense economic benefits.
Ignore the selfish NIMBYs and the daft 'Greens' and for goodness sake just get on with it.muscliffman

This 'assurance' just confirms that there is a continuing energy weakness in political circles. They are just 'spinning' and once again trying to placate the NIMBYS and the 'greens', apparently still quite unaware how few of these very irritating and noisy people there really are. However the vital get out clause 'exceptional circumstances' thankfully says it all!

If fracking really presented any danger at all (it doesn't) to populated areas then these sparsely populated Parks are the very places it should be done - of course the anti-fracking 'greens' are not very good with common sense or logic so this vital point has probably escaped them.

The UK must invest urgently in sensible electricity generation systems including shale gas production and discard those ludicrous next to useless wind farms. Fracking is simply a new name for a process that has been going on worldwide (and nearby) without incident for many years, it is now widespread in the USA and has brought them immense economic benefits.

Ignore the selfish NIMBYs and the daft 'Greens' and for goodness sake just get on with it.

Score: -2

Hessenford
12:53pm Mon 28 Jul 14

muscliffman wrote…

This 'assurance' just confirms that there is a continuing energy weakness in political circles. They are just 'spinning' and once again trying to placate the NIMBYS and the 'greens', apparently still quite unaware how few of these very irritating and noisy people there really are. However the vital get out clause 'exceptional circumstances' thankfully says it all!

If fracking really presented any danger at all (it doesn't) to populated areas then these sparsely populated Parks are the very places it should be done - of course the anti-fracking 'greens' are not very good with common sense or logic so this vital point has probably escaped them.

The UK must invest urgently in sensible electricity generation systems including shale gas production and discard those ludicrous next to useless wind farms. Fracking is simply a new name for a process that has been going on worldwide (and nearby) without incident for many years, it is now widespread in the USA and has brought them immense economic benefits.

Ignore the selfish NIMBYs and the daft 'Greens' and for goodness sake just get on with it.

Well said.

[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote:
This 'assurance' just confirms that there is a continuing energy weakness in political circles. They are just 'spinning' and once again trying to placate the NIMBYS and the 'greens', apparently still quite unaware how few of these very irritating and noisy people there really are. However the vital get out clause 'exceptional circumstances' thankfully says it all!
If fracking really presented any danger at all (it doesn't) to populated areas then these sparsely populated Parks are the very places it should be done - of course the anti-fracking 'greens' are not very good with common sense or logic so this vital point has probably escaped them.
The UK must invest urgently in sensible electricity generation systems including shale gas production and discard those ludicrous next to useless wind farms. Fracking is simply a new name for a process that has been going on worldwide (and nearby) without incident for many years, it is now widespread in the USA and has brought them immense economic benefits.
Ignore the selfish NIMBYs and the daft 'Greens' and for goodness sake just get on with it.[/p][/quote]Well said.Hessenford

muscliffman wrote…

This 'assurance' just confirms that there is a continuing energy weakness in political circles. They are just 'spinning' and once again trying to placate the NIMBYS and the 'greens', apparently still quite unaware how few of these very irritating and noisy people there really are. However the vital get out clause 'exceptional circumstances' thankfully says it all!

If fracking really presented any danger at all (it doesn't) to populated areas then these sparsely populated Parks are the very places it should be done - of course the anti-fracking 'greens' are not very good with common sense or logic so this vital point has probably escaped them.

The UK must invest urgently in sensible electricity generation systems including shale gas production and discard those ludicrous next to useless wind farms. Fracking is simply a new name for a process that has been going on worldwide (and nearby) without incident for many years, it is now widespread in the USA and has brought them immense economic benefits.

Ignore the selfish NIMBYs and the daft 'Greens' and for goodness sake just get on with it.

Well said.

Score: -2

Hessenford
4:24pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uvox44 wrote…

and Hessenford, I don't think they had wind farms, tidal energy and solar power in Medieval times, it's your sort that is holding progress back by never looking beyond the existing technologies that have got us in the mess were are in in the first place- not very bright that , is it?

You are just one of the many brainwashed individuals who have lost the ability to think for themselves and would rather believe the rantings of various nut jobs who promote this poppycock.
I ma just so happy that when I was growing up with sweltering hot summers and freezing cold winters that these untidy hermits who scare everyone to death and the suited dipsticks in some far away office driven by money were not about promoting such tripe.

[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
and Hessenford, I don't think they had wind farms, tidal energy and solar power in Medieval times, it's your sort that is holding progress back by never looking beyond the existing technologies that have got us in the mess were are in in the first place- not very bright that , is it?[/p][/quote]You are just one of the many brainwashed individuals who have lost the ability to think for themselves and would rather believe the rantings of various nut jobs who promote this poppycock.
I ma just so happy that when I was growing up with sweltering hot summers and freezing cold winters that these untidy hermits who scare everyone to death and the suited dipsticks in some far away office driven by money were not about promoting such tripe.Hessenford

uvox44 wrote…

and Hessenford, I don't think they had wind farms, tidal energy and solar power in Medieval times, it's your sort that is holding progress back by never looking beyond the existing technologies that have got us in the mess were are in in the first place- not very bright that , is it?

You are just one of the many brainwashed individuals who have lost the ability to think for themselves and would rather believe the rantings of various nut jobs who promote this poppycock.
I ma just so happy that when I was growing up with sweltering hot summers and freezing cold winters that these untidy hermits who scare everyone to death and the suited dipsticks in some far away office driven by money were not about promoting such tripe.

Score: -1

uvox44
4:09pm Mon 28 Jul 14

yes those nutty greens who want to live on a planet that can support live rather than a toxic, sweltering wasteland- just goes to show how bonkers they are! After all so what if the environment is damaged beyond repair as long as there is cheap energy and jobs for the few people that manage to survice!

yes those nutty greens who want to live on a planet that can support live rather than a toxic, sweltering wasteland- just goes to show how bonkers they are! After all so what if the environment is damaged beyond repair as long as there is cheap energy and jobs for the few people that manage to survice!uvox44

yes those nutty greens who want to live on a planet that can support live rather than a toxic, sweltering wasteland- just goes to show how bonkers they are! After all so what if the environment is damaged beyond repair as long as there is cheap energy and jobs for the few people that manage to survice!

Score: 8

uvox44
4:13pm Mon 28 Jul 14

and Hessenford, I don't think they had wind farms, tidal energy and solar power in Medieval times, it's your sort that is holding progress back by never looking beyond the existing technologies that have got us in the mess were are in in the first place- not very bright that , is it?

and Hessenford, I don't think they had wind farms, tidal energy and solar power in Medieval times, it's your sort that is holding progress back by never looking beyond the existing technologies that have got us in the mess were are in in the first place- not very bright that , is it?uvox44

and Hessenford, I don't think they had wind farms, tidal energy and solar power in Medieval times, it's your sort that is holding progress back by never looking beyond the existing technologies that have got us in the mess were are in in the first place- not very bright that , is it?

Score: 1

muscliffman
5:23pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uvox44 wrote…

hmmm your understanding of how climate change works is very limited isn't it?! have alook at some of the actual predictions rather than using your "common sense" . Just because you don't want to believe something or it is inconvenient to your traditional way of living sadly doesn't make it wrong. And by "various nut jobs" I presume you mean the majority of scientists who have studied the subject in depth? As convincing as your childhood recollections of the weather no doubt are to you I'm struggling to see how they outweigh independant and rigorous studies . I notice you chose to ignore my point about alternative technology being a way forward and not a return to medieval times- you can chose to ignore the environmental problems caused by this sort of ostrich vision if you like but sadly those problems will affect you , or your children and grandchildren anyway- closing your eyes and pretending is a strategy you should have grown out of.

'look at the predictions' you suggest, well some of us have been hearing the same ones over and over again for more than quarter of a Century and the earliest ones guaranteed that seriously negative climate effects would be felt by now - but in fact absolutely nothing has happened.

The establishment funded 'experts' are not impartial and have lost so much credibility they even needed to re-brand global warming as climate change to keep the public's fading attention, whilst more recently they have explained the absence of their earlier predicted climate change upon a 'pause', one funnily enough they never did predict.

From what you write I don't doubt you have genuine concerns, I am also going to hazard a guess you like so many were taught from a younger age (probably in school) that man made climate change is a fact. Fortunately some of us we were not and so we can approach the subject with some realism and not a little cynicism as we see plenty of 'green' opportunists doing very nicely out of their tame expert's 'findings' and the people who believe them.

I am keenly interested in future new energy producing technologies and I have no doubt that in the not too distant future we will leave fossil fuels behind, but for now it is the most efficient and safest option available and there is no 'real' evidence that it's careful use is influencing the world's climate. So for our children's sake let's use it!

[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
hmmm your understanding of how climate change works is very limited isn't it?! have alook at some of the actual predictions rather than using your "common sense" . Just because you don't want to believe something or it is inconvenient to your traditional way of living sadly doesn't make it wrong. And by "various nut jobs" I presume you mean the majority of scientists who have studied the subject in depth? As convincing as your childhood recollections of the weather no doubt are to you I'm struggling to see how they outweigh independant and rigorous studies . I notice you chose to ignore my point about alternative technology being a way forward and not a return to medieval times- you can chose to ignore the environmental problems caused by this sort of ostrich vision if you like but sadly those problems will affect you , or your children and grandchildren anyway- closing your eyes and pretending is a strategy you should have grown out of.[/p][/quote]'look at the predictions' you suggest, well some of us have been hearing the same ones over and over again for more than quarter of a Century and the earliest ones guaranteed that seriously negative climate effects would be felt by now - but in fact absolutely nothing has happened.
The establishment funded 'experts' are not impartial and have lost so much credibility they even needed to re-brand global warming as climate change to keep the public's fading attention, whilst more recently they have explained the absence of their earlier predicted climate change upon a 'pause', one funnily enough they never did predict.
From what you write I don't doubt you have genuine concerns, I am also going to hazard a guess you like so many were taught from a younger age (probably in school) that man made climate change is a fact. Fortunately some of us we were not and so we can approach the subject with some realism and not a little cynicism as we see plenty of 'green' opportunists doing very nicely out of their tame expert's 'findings' and the people who believe them.
I am keenly interested in future new energy producing technologies and I have no doubt that in the not too distant future we will leave fossil fuels behind, but for now it is the most efficient and safest option available and there is no 'real' evidence that it's careful use is influencing the world's climate. So for our children's sake let's use it!muscliffman

uvox44 wrote…

hmmm your understanding of how climate change works is very limited isn't it?! have alook at some of the actual predictions rather than using your "common sense" . Just because you don't want to believe something or it is inconvenient to your traditional way of living sadly doesn't make it wrong. And by "various nut jobs" I presume you mean the majority of scientists who have studied the subject in depth? As convincing as your childhood recollections of the weather no doubt are to you I'm struggling to see how they outweigh independant and rigorous studies . I notice you chose to ignore my point about alternative technology being a way forward and not a return to medieval times- you can chose to ignore the environmental problems caused by this sort of ostrich vision if you like but sadly those problems will affect you , or your children and grandchildren anyway- closing your eyes and pretending is a strategy you should have grown out of.

'look at the predictions' you suggest, well some of us have been hearing the same ones over and over again for more than quarter of a Century and the earliest ones guaranteed that seriously negative climate effects would be felt by now - but in fact absolutely nothing has happened.

The establishment funded 'experts' are not impartial and have lost so much credibility they even needed to re-brand global warming as climate change to keep the public's fading attention, whilst more recently they have explained the absence of their earlier predicted climate change upon a 'pause', one funnily enough they never did predict.

From what you write I don't doubt you have genuine concerns, I am also going to hazard a guess you like so many were taught from a younger age (probably in school) that man made climate change is a fact. Fortunately some of us we were not and so we can approach the subject with some realism and not a little cynicism as we see plenty of 'green' opportunists doing very nicely out of their tame expert's 'findings' and the people who believe them.

I am keenly interested in future new energy producing technologies and I have no doubt that in the not too distant future we will leave fossil fuels behind, but for now it is the most efficient and safest option available and there is no 'real' evidence that it's careful use is influencing the world's climate. So for our children's sake let's use it!

Score: -6

muscliffman
4:51pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uvox44 wrote…

yes those nutty greens who want to live on a planet that can support live rather than a toxic, sweltering wasteland- just goes to show how bonkers they are! After all so what if the environment is damaged beyond repair as long as there is cheap energy and jobs for the few people that manage to survice!

You write that - and then call the common sense realists bonkers!

And of course the brainwashed green nutjobs are all over the news today telling us to get used to the recent thunderstorms and hot weather as they submit these as further exciting evidence of man made global warming and climate change. Actually of course this is all a part of a perfectly standard moderate British summer, but why let a bit of intelligent historic climate review get in the way of the trendy 'green' hysteria.

[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
yes those nutty greens who want to live on a planet that can support live rather than a toxic, sweltering wasteland- just goes to show how bonkers they are! After all so what if the environment is damaged beyond repair as long as there is cheap energy and jobs for the few people that manage to survice![/p][/quote]You write that - and then call the common sense realists bonkers!
And of course the brainwashed green nutjobs are all over the news today telling us to get used to the recent thunderstorms and hot weather as they submit these as further exciting evidence of man made global warming and climate change. Actually of course this is all a part of a perfectly standard moderate British summer, but why let a bit of intelligent historic climate review get in the way of the trendy 'green' hysteria.muscliffman

uvox44 wrote…

yes those nutty greens who want to live on a planet that can support live rather than a toxic, sweltering wasteland- just goes to show how bonkers they are! After all so what if the environment is damaged beyond repair as long as there is cheap energy and jobs for the few people that manage to survice!

You write that - and then call the common sense realists bonkers!

And of course the brainwashed green nutjobs are all over the news today telling us to get used to the recent thunderstorms and hot weather as they submit these as further exciting evidence of man made global warming and climate change. Actually of course this is all a part of a perfectly standard moderate British summer, but why let a bit of intelligent historic climate review get in the way of the trendy 'green' hysteria.

Score: -1

uvox44
4:51pm Mon 28 Jul 14

hmmm your understanding of how climate change works is very limited isn't it?! have alook at some of the actual predictions rather than using your "common sense" . Just because you don't want to believe something or it is inconvenient to your traditional way of living sadly doesn't make it wrong. And by "various nut jobs" I presume you mean the majority of scientists who have studied the subject in depth? As convincing as your childhood recollections of the weather no doubt are to you I'm struggling to see how they outweigh independant and rigorous studies . I notice you chose to ignore my point about alternative technology being a way forward and not a return to medieval times- you can chose to ignore the environmental problems caused by this sort of ostrich vision if you like but sadly those problems will affect you , or your children and grandchildren anyway- closing your eyes and pretending is a strategy you should have grown out of.

hmmm your understanding of how climate change works is very limited isn't it?! have alook at some of the actual predictions rather than using your "common sense" . Just because you don't want to believe something or it is inconvenient to your traditional way of living sadly doesn't make it wrong. And by "various nut jobs" I presume you mean the majority of scientists who have studied the subject in depth? As convincing as your childhood recollections of the weather no doubt are to you I'm struggling to see how they outweigh independant and rigorous studies . I notice you chose to ignore my point about alternative technology being a way forward and not a return to medieval times- you can chose to ignore the environmental problems caused by this sort of ostrich vision if you like but sadly those problems will affect you , or your children and grandchildren anyway- closing your eyes and pretending is a strategy you should have grown out of.uvox44

hmmm your understanding of how climate change works is very limited isn't it?! have alook at some of the actual predictions rather than using your "common sense" . Just because you don't want to believe something or it is inconvenient to your traditional way of living sadly doesn't make it wrong. And by "various nut jobs" I presume you mean the majority of scientists who have studied the subject in depth? As convincing as your childhood recollections of the weather no doubt are to you I'm struggling to see how they outweigh independant and rigorous studies . I notice you chose to ignore my point about alternative technology being a way forward and not a return to medieval times- you can chose to ignore the environmental problems caused by this sort of ostrich vision if you like but sadly those problems will affect you , or your children and grandchildren anyway- closing your eyes and pretending is a strategy you should have grown out of.

Score: 6

Hessenford
5:26pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uvox44 wrote…

hmmm your understanding of how climate change works is very limited isn't it?! have alook at some of the actual predictions rather than using your "common sense" . Just because you don't want to believe something or it is inconvenient to your traditional way of living sadly doesn't make it wrong. And by "various nut jobs" I presume you mean the majority of scientists who have studied the subject in depth? As convincing as your childhood recollections of the weather no doubt are to you I'm struggling to see how they outweigh independant and rigorous studies . I notice you chose to ignore my point about alternative technology being a way forward and not a return to medieval times- you can chose to ignore the environmental problems caused by this sort of ostrich vision if you like but sadly those problems will affect you , or your children and grandchildren anyway- closing your eyes and pretending is a strategy you should have grown out of.

Oh and you know exactly how climate change works, or are you just repeating what the nut jobs have told you,
I think that you have been told the motor car is evil and oil and coal will kill us all and just choose to accept it as fact rather than use your own common sense.
As far as predictions go, we have a met office that cant get the next days weather right so I don't have much faith in the nut jobs I'm afraid.
We were all told in 2001 that children would not see snow in their life time, great prediction.
It's not that I don't want to believe something, its just I look at both sides and all I see is the people who would lose a very rich lifestyle if the climate change myth disappeared.
All over the news this week is the headline "World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong".
Also, " Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007", and, " Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated", when the people who spout this tripe admit they got it wrong I have to ask what was their motive in the first place, answer, money.
None of their predictions have come true so thanks for the lesson but I am old enough to know a scam when I see one.

[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
hmmm your understanding of how climate change works is very limited isn't it?! have alook at some of the actual predictions rather than using your "common sense" . Just because you don't want to believe something or it is inconvenient to your traditional way of living sadly doesn't make it wrong. And by "various nut jobs" I presume you mean the majority of scientists who have studied the subject in depth? As convincing as your childhood recollections of the weather no doubt are to you I'm struggling to see how they outweigh independant and rigorous studies . I notice you chose to ignore my point about alternative technology being a way forward and not a return to medieval times- you can chose to ignore the environmental problems caused by this sort of ostrich vision if you like but sadly those problems will affect you , or your children and grandchildren anyway- closing your eyes and pretending is a strategy you should have grown out of.[/p][/quote]Oh and you know exactly how climate change works, or are you just repeating what the nut jobs have told you,
I think that you have been told the motor car is evil and oil and coal will kill us all and just choose to accept it as fact rather than use your own common sense.
As far as predictions go, we have a met office that cant get the next days weather right so I don't have much faith in the nut jobs I'm afraid.
We were all told in 2001 that children would not see snow in their life time, great prediction.
It's not that I don't want to believe something, its just I look at both sides and all I see is the people who would lose a very rich lifestyle if the climate change myth disappeared.
All over the news this week is the headline "World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong".
Also, " Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007", and, " Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated", when the people who spout this tripe admit they got it wrong I have to ask what was their motive in the first place, answer, money.
None of their predictions have come true so thanks for the lesson but I am old enough to know a scam when I see one.Hessenford

uvox44 wrote…

hmmm your understanding of how climate change works is very limited isn't it?! have alook at some of the actual predictions rather than using your "common sense" . Just because you don't want to believe something or it is inconvenient to your traditional way of living sadly doesn't make it wrong. And by "various nut jobs" I presume you mean the majority of scientists who have studied the subject in depth? As convincing as your childhood recollections of the weather no doubt are to you I'm struggling to see how they outweigh independant and rigorous studies . I notice you chose to ignore my point about alternative technology being a way forward and not a return to medieval times- you can chose to ignore the environmental problems caused by this sort of ostrich vision if you like but sadly those problems will affect you , or your children and grandchildren anyway- closing your eyes and pretending is a strategy you should have grown out of.

Oh and you know exactly how climate change works, or are you just repeating what the nut jobs have told you,
I think that you have been told the motor car is evil and oil and coal will kill us all and just choose to accept it as fact rather than use your own common sense.
As far as predictions go, we have a met office that cant get the next days weather right so I don't have much faith in the nut jobs I'm afraid.
We were all told in 2001 that children would not see snow in their life time, great prediction.
It's not that I don't want to believe something, its just I look at both sides and all I see is the people who would lose a very rich lifestyle if the climate change myth disappeared.
All over the news this week is the headline "World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong".
Also, " Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007", and, " Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated", when the people who spout this tripe admit they got it wrong I have to ask what was their motive in the first place, answer, money.
None of their predictions have come true so thanks for the lesson but I am old enough to know a scam when I see one.

Score: -7

The Liberal
6:17pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....[/p][/quote]There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.The Liberal

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Score: 10

uvox44
5:50pm Mon 28 Jul 14

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....uvox44

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

Score: 11

muscliffman
6:24pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

I am genuinely so sorry - you really don't get it do you?

[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....[/p][/quote]I am genuinely so sorry - you really don't get it do you?muscliffman

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

I am genuinely so sorry - you really don't get it do you?

Score: -6

Hessenford
6:30pm Mon 28 Jul 14

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....[/p][/quote]There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.[/p][/quote]Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.Hessenford

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Score: -6

The Liberal
6:39pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc
And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”The Liberal

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Score: 9

The Liberal
6:45pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....[/p][/quote]There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.[/p][/quote]Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.[/p][/quote]Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”The Liberal

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

Score: 10

uvox44
6:57pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Hmmm seems H and MM can't actually explain how the scam they are convinced of actually works (that's because there isn't one) but as for "not getting it" then I await YOUR explanation of how the scam works ( i fear i may be waiting a long time) and while you are at it how is it that the scientific community has let all these "nut jobs" take over? (again the obvious answer is they haven't , only in the mind of tea-party style conspiracy lovers) and further given that the oil and other fossil fuel companies have the biggest budgets surely if all these scientist were just in it for the money they'd all be desperate to produce papers for them and not the relatively small green lobby? If you could have a bash at answering these points i'd be jolly grateful rather than just avoiding them ?

Hmmm seems H and MM can't actually explain how the scam they are convinced of actually works (that's because there isn't one) but as for "not getting it" then I await YOUR explanation of how the scam works ( i fear i may be waiting a long time) and while you are at it how is it that the scientific community has let all these "nut jobs" take over? (again the obvious answer is they haven't , only in the mind of tea-party style conspiracy lovers) and further given that the oil and other fossil fuel companies have the biggest budgets surely if all these scientist were just in it for the money they'd all be desperate to produce papers for them and not the relatively small green lobby? If you could have a bash at answering these points i'd be jolly grateful rather than just avoiding them ?uvox44

Hmmm seems H and MM can't actually explain how the scam they are convinced of actually works (that's because there isn't one) but as for "not getting it" then I await YOUR explanation of how the scam works ( i fear i may be waiting a long time) and while you are at it how is it that the scientific community has let all these "nut jobs" take over? (again the obvious answer is they haven't , only in the mind of tea-party style conspiracy lovers) and further given that the oil and other fossil fuel companies have the biggest budgets surely if all these scientist were just in it for the money they'd all be desperate to produce papers for them and not the relatively small green lobby? If you could have a bash at answering these points i'd be jolly grateful rather than just avoiding them ?

Score: 13

Hessenford
7:07pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

It's not a case of denial, and stuff the consensus.
Just accept that you believe this trash and I don't, I have watched this whole scam change from the ozone layer has a hole, then onto global warming because we had warmer summers, then the rains came and it changed again to climate change, why do I get the impression that these highly paid so called scientists are changing the name to suit their pockets.
In the year 2000 Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit said, "Children aren't going to know what snow is", just another prediction that was pure hogwash..
There's arguments for and against this scam but there is no absolute proof its happening, just predictions, and predictions are not absolute proof, some have already missed their mark.
We were all told years ago that all the ice in the arctic would disappear by 2015 when in reality Arctic sea ice experienced record 60-percent growth in August 2013 compared to August 2012..
Funny how every year the alarmists have been predicting that arctic ice would recede until it disappeared for good.
Did they predict the same this year, No of course not, because of record growth in 2013 the alarmists never predicted Arctic sea ice would recede this year. They all predicted record Arctic sea ice growth, instead, yet another quick change of opinion to suit themselves.
Any way you believe what you like, I for one will never subscribe to the biggest con job of the century.
I will continue to drive my car, support fracking, and allow cows to **** when they like.

[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....[/p][/quote]It's not a case of denial, and stuff the consensus.
Just accept that you believe this trash and I don't, I have watched this whole scam change from the ozone layer has a hole, then onto global warming because we had warmer summers, then the rains came and it changed again to climate change, why do I get the impression that these highly paid so called scientists are changing the name to suit their pockets.
In the year 2000 Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit said, "Children aren't going to know what snow is", just another prediction that was pure hogwash..
There's arguments for and against this scam but there is no absolute proof its happening, just predictions, and predictions are not absolute proof, some have already missed their mark.
We were all told years ago that all the ice in the arctic would disappear by 2015 when in reality Arctic sea ice experienced record 60-percent growth in August 2013 compared to August 2012..
Funny how every year the alarmists have been predicting that arctic ice would recede until it disappeared for good.
Did they predict the same this year, No of course not, because of record growth in 2013 the alarmists never predicted Arctic sea ice would recede this year. They all predicted record Arctic sea ice growth, instead, yet another quick change of opinion to suit themselves.
Any way you believe what you like, I for one will never subscribe to the biggest con job of the century.
I will continue to drive my car, support fracking, and allow cows to **** when they like.Hessenford

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

It's not a case of denial, and stuff the consensus.
Just accept that you believe this trash and I don't, I have watched this whole scam change from the ozone layer has a hole, then onto global warming because we had warmer summers, then the rains came and it changed again to climate change, why do I get the impression that these highly paid so called scientists are changing the name to suit their pockets.
In the year 2000 Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit said, "Children aren't going to know what snow is", just another prediction that was pure hogwash..
There's arguments for and against this scam but there is no absolute proof its happening, just predictions, and predictions are not absolute proof, some have already missed their mark.
We were all told years ago that all the ice in the arctic would disappear by 2015 when in reality Arctic sea ice experienced record 60-percent growth in August 2013 compared to August 2012..
Funny how every year the alarmists have been predicting that arctic ice would recede until it disappeared for good.
Did they predict the same this year, No of course not, because of record growth in 2013 the alarmists never predicted Arctic sea ice would recede this year. They all predicted record Arctic sea ice growth, instead, yet another quick change of opinion to suit themselves.
Any way you believe what you like, I for one will never subscribe to the biggest con job of the century.
I will continue to drive my car, support fracking, and allow cows to **** when they like.

Score: -9

uvox44
7:22pm Mon 28 Jul 14

I give up, as you are incapable of giving me the exact way the so called scam works then I'm afraid I can only conclude it is just your political ideology (right of Thatcher it appears) that makes you cherry pick blips in the overall trend for climate warming to "prove" it isn't happening. And even if I accepted your assertion that there is no man made climate change (which i certainly can't , I'd love to i can assure you ) there is the small matter of the other environmental problems with fossil fuels (dirty air causing asthma ring any bells) water pollution etc etc - are these all made up by these "nutjobs"?! What possible objection could any sane person have to moving from unsustainable fossil fuels to clean and sustainable alternatives?

I give up, as you are incapable of giving me the exact way the so called scam works then I'm afraid I can only conclude it is just your political ideology (right of Thatcher it appears) that makes you cherry pick blips in the overall trend for climate warming to "prove" it isn't happening. And even if I accepted your assertion that there is no man made climate change (which i certainly can't , I'd love to i can assure you ) there is the small matter of the other environmental problems with fossil fuels (dirty air causing asthma ring any bells) water pollution etc etc - are these all made up by these "nutjobs"?! What possible objection could any sane person have to moving from unsustainable fossil fuels to clean and sustainable alternatives?uvox44

I give up, as you are incapable of giving me the exact way the so called scam works then I'm afraid I can only conclude it is just your political ideology (right of Thatcher it appears) that makes you cherry pick blips in the overall trend for climate warming to "prove" it isn't happening. And even if I accepted your assertion that there is no man made climate change (which i certainly can't , I'd love to i can assure you ) there is the small matter of the other environmental problems with fossil fuels (dirty air causing asthma ring any bells) water pollution etc etc - are these all made up by these "nutjobs"?! What possible objection could any sane person have to moving from unsustainable fossil fuels to clean and sustainable alternatives?

Score: 9

muscliffman
7:23pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uvox44 wrote…

Hmmm seems H and MM can't actually explain how the scam they are convinced of actually works (that's because there isn't one) but as for "not getting it" then I await YOUR explanation of how the scam works ( i fear i may be waiting a long time) and while you are at it how is it that the scientific community has let all these "nut jobs" take over? (again the obvious answer is they haven't , only in the mind of tea-party style conspiracy lovers) and further given that the oil and other fossil fuel companies have the biggest budgets surely if all these scientist were just in it for the money they'd all be desperate to produce papers for them and not the relatively small green lobby? If you could have a bash at answering these points i'd be jolly grateful rather than just avoiding them ?

Just follow the money and the power being gained by the myth of man man climate change, but with respect there is no point in detailed explanations if you cannot already see what is staring you in the face.

[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
Hmmm seems H and MM can't actually explain how the scam they are convinced of actually works (that's because there isn't one) but as for "not getting it" then I await YOUR explanation of how the scam works ( i fear i may be waiting a long time) and while you are at it how is it that the scientific community has let all these "nut jobs" take over? (again the obvious answer is they haven't , only in the mind of tea-party style conspiracy lovers) and further given that the oil and other fossil fuel companies have the biggest budgets surely if all these scientist were just in it for the money they'd all be desperate to produce papers for them and not the relatively small green lobby? If you could have a bash at answering these points i'd be jolly grateful rather than just avoiding them ?[/p][/quote]Just follow the money and the power being gained by the myth of man man climate change, but with respect there is no point in detailed explanations if you cannot already see what is staring you in the face.muscliffman

uvox44 wrote…

Hmmm seems H and MM can't actually explain how the scam they are convinced of actually works (that's because there isn't one) but as for "not getting it" then I await YOUR explanation of how the scam works ( i fear i may be waiting a long time) and while you are at it how is it that the scientific community has let all these "nut jobs" take over? (again the obvious answer is they haven't , only in the mind of tea-party style conspiracy lovers) and further given that the oil and other fossil fuel companies have the biggest budgets surely if all these scientist were just in it for the money they'd all be desperate to produce papers for them and not the relatively small green lobby? If you could have a bash at answering these points i'd be jolly grateful rather than just avoiding them ?

Just follow the money and the power being gained by the myth of man man climate change, but with respect there is no point in detailed explanations if you cannot already see what is staring you in the face.

Score: -6

uvox44
7:36pm Mon 28 Jul 14

again (banging my head against the wall) i ask - if there is so much money being (somehow) made in this "scam" that no-one can explain the details of then why aren't the big multinationals all falling over themselves to get on board? They wouldn't miss such an opportunity if it actually existed would they? Why carry on with traditional fossil fuels as a business if there are great riches to be made in the alternative view? This is just some UKIP style conspiracy theory that plays to the fears of the Jeremy Clarkson luddites.

again (banging my head against the wall) i ask - if there is so much money being (somehow) made in this "scam" that no-one can explain the details of then why aren't the big multinationals all falling over themselves to get on board? They wouldn't miss such an opportunity if it actually existed would they? Why carry on with traditional fossil fuels as a business if there are great riches to be made in the alternative view? This is just some UKIP style conspiracy theory that plays to the fears of the Jeremy Clarkson luddites.uvox44

again (banging my head against the wall) i ask - if there is so much money being (somehow) made in this "scam" that no-one can explain the details of then why aren't the big multinationals all falling over themselves to get on board? They wouldn't miss such an opportunity if it actually existed would they? Why carry on with traditional fossil fuels as a business if there are great riches to be made in the alternative view? This is just some UKIP style conspiracy theory that plays to the fears of the Jeremy Clarkson luddites.

Score: 8

muscliffman
7:38pm Mon 28 Jul 14

The Liberal wrote…

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"

The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops!

[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....[/p][/quote]There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.[/p][/quote]Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.[/p][/quote]Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”[/p][/quote]Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"
The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops!muscliffman

The Liberal wrote…

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"

The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops!

Score: -7

The Liberal
9:08pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc
And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”[/p][/quote]Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.
As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.
Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.
And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.
Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.[/p][/quote]I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”The Liberal

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

Score: 1

Marty Caine UKIP
8:57pm Mon 28 Jul 14

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc
And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”[/p][/quote]Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.
As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.
Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.
And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.
Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.Marty Caine UKIP

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

Score: -3

The Liberal
8:57pm Mon 28 Jul 14

muscliffman wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"

The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops!

Exposed: The myth of the global warming 'pause': ind.pn/1bkac8h

Oops. Thanks for chipping in on the fracking debate, though: I do find that whenever I feel undecided about a certain issue, I look at what muscliffman has to say and, as a general rule of thumb, the opposite must be true. :)

[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....[/p][/quote]There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.[/p][/quote]Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.[/p][/quote]Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”[/p][/quote]Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"
The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops![/p][/quote]Exposed: The myth of the global warming 'pause': ind.pn/1bkac8h
Oops. Thanks for chipping in on the fracking debate, though: I do find that whenever I feel undecided about a certain issue, I look at what muscliffman has to say and, as a general rule of thumb, the opposite must be true. :)The Liberal

muscliffman wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"

The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops!

Exposed: The myth of the global warming 'pause': ind.pn/1bkac8h

Oops. Thanks for chipping in on the fracking debate, though: I do find that whenever I feel undecided about a certain issue, I look at what muscliffman has to say and, as a general rule of thumb, the opposite must be true. :)

Score: 1

The Liberal
9:15pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

I rest my case....

Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.

Yes, I know that! In which case, Lord Browne should know what he's talking about when he says there will be no impact on energy prices!

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc
And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”[/p][/quote]Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.
As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.
Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.
And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.
Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.[/p][/quote]I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”[/p][/quote]I rest my case....
Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.[/p][/quote]Yes, I know that! In which case, Lord Browne should know what he's talking about when he says there will be no impact on energy prices!The Liberal

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

I rest my case....

Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.

Yes, I know that! In which case, Lord Browne should know what he's talking about when he says there will be no impact on energy prices!

Score: 2

Marty Caine UKIP
9:11pm Mon 28 Jul 14

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

I rest my case....

Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.

[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc
And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”[/p][/quote]Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.
As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.
Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.
And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.
Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.[/p][/quote]I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”[/p][/quote]I rest my case....
Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.Marty Caine UKIP

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

I rest my case....

Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.

Score: -2

The Liberal
9:13pm Mon 28 Jul 14

uvox44 wrote…

again (banging my head against the wall) i ask - if there is so much money being (somehow) made in this "scam" that no-one can explain the details of then why aren't the big multinationals all falling over themselves to get on board? They wouldn't miss such an opportunity if it actually existed would they? Why carry on with traditional fossil fuels as a business if there are great riches to be made in the alternative view? This is just some UKIP style conspiracy theory that plays to the fears of the Jeremy Clarkson luddites.

There is no scam. As Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, former head of BP and also co-head of the world’s largest renewable energy fund (so he should know what he's talking about), revealed recently: “In 2011, the UK spent over £4bn supporting the production and consumption of oil and gas, more than they spent to support renewable energy.”

[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
again (banging my head against the wall) i ask - if there is so much money being (somehow) made in this "scam" that no-one can explain the details of then why aren't the big multinationals all falling over themselves to get on board? They wouldn't miss such an opportunity if it actually existed would they? Why carry on with traditional fossil fuels as a business if there are great riches to be made in the alternative view? This is just some UKIP style conspiracy theory that plays to the fears of the Jeremy Clarkson luddites.[/p][/quote]There is no scam. As Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, former head of BP and also co-head of the world’s largest renewable energy fund (so he should know what he's talking about), revealed recently: “In 2011, the UK spent over £4bn supporting the production and consumption of oil and gas, more than they spent to support renewable energy.”The Liberal

uvox44 wrote…

again (banging my head against the wall) i ask - if there is so much money being (somehow) made in this "scam" that no-one can explain the details of then why aren't the big multinationals all falling over themselves to get on board? They wouldn't miss such an opportunity if it actually existed would they? Why carry on with traditional fossil fuels as a business if there are great riches to be made in the alternative view? This is just some UKIP style conspiracy theory that plays to the fears of the Jeremy Clarkson luddites.

There is no scam. As Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, former head of BP and also co-head of the world’s largest renewable energy fund (so he should know what he's talking about), revealed recently: “In 2011, the UK spent over £4bn supporting the production and consumption of oil and gas, more than they spent to support renewable energy.”

Score: 0

Marty Caine UKIP
9:46pm Mon 28 Jul 14

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

I rest my case....

Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.

Yes, I know that! In which case, Lord Browne should know what he's talking about when he says there will be no impact on energy prices!

Think you may need to show some evidence of that claim, because every article I have read in regards to Lord Browne and Fracking he is definitely pro fracking , the company you quoted Cuadrilla Resources is pro fracking.

Lord Browne says "fracking would secure a new domestic energy source, create thousands of jobs, generate billions of pounds in tax revenue and be a far cheaper alternative than constructing nuclear plants."

[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc
And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”[/p][/quote]Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.
As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.
Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.
And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.
Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.[/p][/quote]I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”[/p][/quote]I rest my case....
Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.[/p][/quote]Yes, I know that! In which case, Lord Browne should know what he's talking about when he says there will be no impact on energy prices![/p][/quote]Think you may need to show some evidence of that claim, because every article I have read in regards to Lord Browne and Fracking he is definitely pro fracking , the company you quoted Cuadrilla Resources is pro fracking.
Lord Browne says "fracking would secure a new domestic energy source, create thousands of jobs, generate billions of pounds in tax revenue and be a far cheaper alternative than constructing nuclear plants."Marty Caine UKIP

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

I rest my case....

Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.

Yes, I know that! In which case, Lord Browne should know what he's talking about when he says there will be no impact on energy prices!

Think you may need to show some evidence of that claim, because every article I have read in regards to Lord Browne and Fracking he is definitely pro fracking , the company you quoted Cuadrilla Resources is pro fracking.

Lord Browne says "fracking would secure a new domestic energy source, create thousands of jobs, generate billions of pounds in tax revenue and be a far cheaper alternative than constructing nuclear plants."

Score: 1

muscliffman
10:55pm Mon 28 Jul 14

The Liberal wrote…

muscliffman wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"

The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops!

Exposed: The myth of the global warming 'pause': ind.pn/1bkac8h

Oops. Thanks for chipping in on the fracking debate, though: I do find that whenever I feel undecided about a certain issue, I look at what muscliffman has to say and, as a general rule of thumb, the opposite must be true. :)

As always you are very welcome - whilst quite unimportantly, but as you well know the opposite of what you say about my comments is usually the case.

There is nothing to beat a bit of fracking to bring out the far-lefties and the bewildered greens - and sometimes we get two for the price of one!

[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....[/p][/quote]There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.[/p][/quote]Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.[/p][/quote]Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”[/p][/quote]Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"
The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops![/p][/quote]Exposed: The myth of the global warming 'pause': ind.pn/1bkac8h
Oops. Thanks for chipping in on the fracking debate, though: I do find that whenever I feel undecided about a certain issue, I look at what muscliffman has to say and, as a general rule of thumb, the opposite must be true. :)[/p][/quote]As always you are very welcome - whilst quite unimportantly, but as you well know the opposite of what you say about my comments is usually the case.
There is nothing to beat a bit of fracking to bring out the far-lefties and the bewildered greens - and sometimes we get two for the price of one!muscliffman

The Liberal wrote…

muscliffman wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"

The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops!

Exposed: The myth of the global warming 'pause': ind.pn/1bkac8h

Oops. Thanks for chipping in on the fracking debate, though: I do find that whenever I feel undecided about a certain issue, I look at what muscliffman has to say and, as a general rule of thumb, the opposite must be true. :)

As always you are very welcome - whilst quite unimportantly, but as you well know the opposite of what you say about my comments is usually the case.

There is nothing to beat a bit of fracking to bring out the far-lefties and the bewildered greens - and sometimes we get two for the price of one!

Score: 1

HRH of Boscombe
12:01am Tue 29 Jul 14

Great news for the National parks.
.
I do hope this doesn't excuse the Tory estate owners in those areas??!!

Great news for the National parks.
.
I do hope this doesn't excuse the Tory estate owners in those areas??!!HRH of Boscombe

Great news for the National parks.
.
I do hope this doesn't excuse the Tory estate owners in those areas??!!

Score: 0

Phixer
8:07am Tue 29 Jul 14

The Liberal wrote…

One somewhat obvious question: if fracking is as risk-free as its supporters claim and doesn't spoil the countryside, why should national parks be out of bounds? Is there something they're not telling us?

Of course! Have you ever known a government that was open & honest - something of an oxymoron.

Just wait until one of those big taxpayer-funded companies screws up and contaminates our ground water. Then we'll see how much this idea will cost us.

Don't tell me it won't happen; how many disasters have there been in extracting and shipping oil & gas?

[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
One somewhat obvious question: if fracking is as risk-free as its supporters claim and doesn't spoil the countryside, why should national parks be out of bounds? Is there something they're not telling us?[/p][/quote]Of course! Have you ever known a government that was open & honest - something of an oxymoron.
Just wait until one of those big taxpayer-funded companies screws up and contaminates our ground water. Then we'll see how much this idea will cost us.
Don't tell me it won't happen; how many disasters have there been in extracting and shipping oil & gas?Phixer

The Liberal wrote…

One somewhat obvious question: if fracking is as risk-free as its supporters claim and doesn't spoil the countryside, why should national parks be out of bounds? Is there something they're not telling us?

Of course! Have you ever known a government that was open & honest - something of an oxymoron.

Just wait until one of those big taxpayer-funded companies screws up and contaminates our ground water. Then we'll see how much this idea will cost us.

Don't tell me it won't happen; how many disasters have there been in extracting and shipping oil & gas?

Score: 0

Ophilum
8:23am Tue 29 Jul 14

All the greens and there chums on the left can do is winge about fracking saying is bad and we will be contaminated ect, let,s try some sites and see how they go if that works ok and there is no problems then go ahead to say nothing should take place is crass. And as for navitus that scheme is just stupid in the extreame and should be stopped as it will be a disasaster and the silly billy lying greens know it.

All the greens and there chums on the left can do is winge about fracking saying is bad and we will be contaminated ect, let,s try some sites and see how they go if that works ok and there is no problems then go ahead to say nothing should take place is crass. And as for navitus that scheme is just stupid in the extreame and should be stopped as it will be a disasaster and the silly billy lying greens know it.Ophilum

All the greens and there chums on the left can do is winge about fracking saying is bad and we will be contaminated ect, let,s try some sites and see how they go if that works ok and there is no problems then go ahead to say nothing should take place is crass. And as for navitus that scheme is just stupid in the extreame and should be stopped as it will be a disasaster and the silly billy lying greens know it.

Score: 0

The Liberal
10:08am Tue 29 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

I rest my case....

Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.

Yes, I know that! In which case, Lord Browne should know what he's talking about when he says there will be no impact on energy prices!

Think you may need to show some evidence of that claim, because every article I have read in regards to Lord Browne and Fracking he is definitely pro fracking , the company you quoted Cuadrilla Resources is pro fracking.

Lord Browne says "fracking would secure a new domestic energy source, create thousands of jobs, generate billions of pounds in tax revenue and be a far cheaper alternative than constructing nuclear plants."

Yes, I KNOW THAT! Hence me starting my original point with the word ‘even’! There may well be other benefits to fracking, such as increased energy security, but Lord Browne has stated that it's unlikely to reduce domestic energy prices – bit.ly/IQEnOB.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc
And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”[/p][/quote]Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.
As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.
Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.
And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.
Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.[/p][/quote]I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”[/p][/quote]I rest my case....
Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.[/p][/quote]Yes, I know that! In which case, Lord Browne should know what he's talking about when he says there will be no impact on energy prices![/p][/quote]Think you may need to show some evidence of that claim, because every article I have read in regards to Lord Browne and Fracking he is definitely pro fracking , the company you quoted Cuadrilla Resources is pro fracking.
Lord Browne says "fracking would secure a new domestic energy source, create thousands of jobs, generate billions of pounds in tax revenue and be a far cheaper alternative than constructing nuclear plants."[/p][/quote]Yes, I KNOW THAT! Hence me starting my original point with the word ‘even’! There may well be other benefits to fracking, such as increased energy security, but Lord Browne has stated that it's unlikely to reduce domestic energy prices – bit.ly/IQEnOB.The Liberal

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Then there's the question of water use. A fracking site uses millions of gallons of fresh water. It's not exactly an unlimited resource. Indeed, a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health claims that fracking could lead to water shortages in parts of the country: bit.ly/1kLatrc

And Water UK, the water trade body, has warned: “Where water is in short supply, there may not be enough available from public water supplies or the environment to meet the requirements for hydraulic fracturing.”

Maybe if you actually did some real research into what you post you would stop advertising just how clueless you are. Modern day fracking recycles the water it uses.

As for those saying what scam is in renewables, try looking at the government subsidies these renewable companies get and look at the number of wind farms that have simply been abandoned after those subsidies stopped.

Take a look at America, who found that wind energy was not fit for purpose so abandoned it for fracking and look how that reduced their energy prices.

And for those of you that are convinced that I am lying for some obscure reason of no profit whatsoever, take a look at one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace, who was it's leader for 15 years and then realised what a scam man made climate change really was, his name is Patrick Moore and I am sure he has far more knowledge about it all than anyone else posting here.

Fracking will allow us to become self sufficient in our energy needs and reduce our fuels bills. Why would any sensible person be against that idea.

I think it's you who needs to do some more research. Not sure where you get the idea from that energy prices will be reduced due to fracking. Even Lord Browne, chairman of Cuadrilla, has stated that that is unlikely to happen in the UK: "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price.”

I rest my case....

Cuadrilla Resources is an oil and gas exploration and production company with headquarters and operations in the United Kingdom. It is best known for its ongoing effort to develop shale gas in the UK by using hydraulic fracturing.

Yes, I know that! In which case, Lord Browne should know what he's talking about when he says there will be no impact on energy prices!

Think you may need to show some evidence of that claim, because every article I have read in regards to Lord Browne and Fracking he is definitely pro fracking , the company you quoted Cuadrilla Resources is pro fracking.

Lord Browne says "fracking would secure a new domestic energy source, create thousands of jobs, generate billions of pounds in tax revenue and be a far cheaper alternative than constructing nuclear plants."

Yes, I KNOW THAT! Hence me starting my original point with the word ‘even’! There may well be other benefits to fracking, such as increased energy security, but Lord Browne has stated that it's unlikely to reduce domestic energy prices – bit.ly/IQEnOB.

Score: 1

The Liberal
12:30pm Tue 29 Jul 14

muscliffman wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

muscliffman wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"

The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops!

Exposed: The myth of the global warming 'pause': ind.pn/1bkac8h

Oops. Thanks for chipping in on the fracking debate, though: I do find that whenever I feel undecided about a certain issue, I look at what muscliffman has to say and, as a general rule of thumb, the opposite must be true. :)

As always you are very welcome - whilst quite unimportantly, but as you well know the opposite of what you say about my comments is usually the case.

There is nothing to beat a bit of fracking to bring out the far-lefties and the bewildered greens - and sometimes we get two for the price of one!

Seriously mate, I think you should seek professional help before you implode in a fit of delusional self-congratulation. LOL

BTW I am neither a green nor a far leftie, so you're wrong on both counts.

[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote:
well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?
Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?
Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....[/p][/quote]There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.[/p][/quote]Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.[/p][/quote]Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”[/p][/quote]Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"
The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops![/p][/quote]Exposed: The myth of the global warming 'pause': ind.pn/1bkac8h
Oops. Thanks for chipping in on the fracking debate, though: I do find that whenever I feel undecided about a certain issue, I look at what muscliffman has to say and, as a general rule of thumb, the opposite must be true. :)[/p][/quote]As always you are very welcome - whilst quite unimportantly, but as you well know the opposite of what you say about my comments is usually the case.
There is nothing to beat a bit of fracking to bring out the far-lefties and the bewildered greens - and sometimes we get two for the price of one![/p][/quote]Seriously mate, I think you should seek professional help before you implode in a fit of delusional self-congratulation. LOL
BTW I am neither a green nor a far leftie, so you're wrong on both counts.The Liberal

muscliffman wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

muscliffman wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

Hessenford wrote…

The Liberal wrote…

uvox44 wrote…

well let's hope you and your fellow deniers are correct , it will be great if you are but the consensus is still very much that climate change is very much a real problem. I'm not sure who is making money out of this so called "scam" or how? Maybe you'd like to explain how the "scam " works?

Talk of establishment funded experts is bizarre , most govts are hell bent on undermining the environmental lobby because the old guard who rely on fossil fuels have an undue influence to make sure it is "business as usual" How excatly do groups such as FOE and Greenpeace make money from this so called scam ?

Yes they get donations but then they are fighting companies such as Shell and Monsanto which have massive resources so they need some money!
Anyway I await your explanation of how the scam works with baited breath....

There's no convincing some people. It wouldn't matter if the oceans started to boil, they'd still be in denial. Best not to waste your time arguing with folks like that. They'll never change… sadly, unlike the climate already has and is continuing to do.

Oh please provide proof of where the climate has changed in recent years, I cant wait for this one.

Global-average temperature records look pretty convincing to me. According to the Met Office: “The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000.”

Perhaps not that convincing if you read this recent report summary from a David Deming professor of sciences at the University of Oklahoma, USA "If the current cooling trend continues for a few more years, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction. It will then join a long list of other expired environmental doom-and-gloom predictions"

The climate pause of the past fifteen years is right now developing into a cooling trend and the polar ice is factually already expanding....oops!

Exposed: The myth of the global warming 'pause': ind.pn/1bkac8h

Oops. Thanks for chipping in on the fracking debate, though: I do find that whenever I feel undecided about a certain issue, I look at what muscliffman has to say and, as a general rule of thumb, the opposite must be true. :)

As always you are very welcome - whilst quite unimportantly, but as you well know the opposite of what you say about my comments is usually the case.

There is nothing to beat a bit of fracking to bring out the far-lefties and the bewildered greens - and sometimes we get two for the price of one!

Seriously mate, I think you should seek professional help before you implode in a fit of delusional self-congratulation. LOL

BTW I am neither a green nor a far leftie, so you're wrong on both counts.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here